Hughes v. Fraley

United States District Court, D. Arizona

April 28, 2017

Michael Kurt Hughes, Plaintiff,v.Jacob Fraley, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

Eric
J. Markovich United States Magistrate Judge.

I.
Introduction

In this
§ 1983 action, Plaintiff Michael Hughes alleges that
Defendants violated his civil rights when Defendant Fraley
falsely arrested him without probable cause (Count One), used
excessive force against Hughes by taking him to the ground,
striking him in the head, and restraining him (Count Two),
and falsely imprisoned Hughes by forcibly restraining and
handcuffing him and booking Hughes into the Pima County Jail
(Count Four). Hughes also alleges that Defendant Martino used
excessive force by kicking him in the back when he was fully
restrained on the ground (Count Three).

Before
the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First
Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. 13). Defendants
argue for dismissal of Counts One, Two, and Four pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

The
motion has been fully briefed, and the Court heard oral
arguments on April 18, 2017. For the reasons stated below,
the Court will grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

II.
Factual Background

Plaintiff
Michael Hughes filed this action in Pima County Superior
Court on June 2, 2016, and Defendants removed the case to
this Court on June 24, 2016. (Doc. 1). This matter is now
proceeding on Plaintiff's FAC, filed on September 12,
2016. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff's FAC states four claims for
relief: Count One, false arrest against Defendant Fraley;
Count Two, excessive force against Defendant Fraley; Count
Three, excessive force against Defendant Martino; and Count
Four, false imprisonment against Defendant
Fraley.[1]

Plaintiff's
claims stem from his arrest following a domestic violence
incident at his residence, where Plaintiff was the alleged
victim.[2] Defendant Fraley responded to the domestic
violence call, but Plaintiff left his residence prior to
Defendant Fraley's arrival. Plaintiff's girlfriend
told Fraley that Plaintiff left the house with a large
kitchen knife. When Plaintiff returned home, Fraley observed
that Plaintiff had cuts on his arms consistent with
self-inflicted wounds. Fraley spoke with Plaintiff in his
front yard and told Plaintiff to take his hands out of his
pockets, but Plaintiff did not comply. Fraley told Plaintiff
that he was not under arrest but that Fraley needed to talk
to him. Plaintiff walked into his house and attempted to
close the door behind him, and Fraley pushed the door open.
In his report, Fraley stated that he pushed the door open
because Plaintiff was a danger to himself and for officer
safety reasons. Fraley grabbed Plaintiff's arm and told
him not to go behind the door. Plaintiff was standing in his
living room and had both of his hands out of his pockets. He
was holding a pack of cigarettes in one hand and the other
hand was empty. Fraley said “Do not do that again and
listen to everything I tell you, ” and Plaintiff
responded “Let me tell you something” and pointed
his finger at Fraley. Fraley alleges Plaintiff attempted to
grab his uniform; Fraley then attempted to grab
Plaintiff's arm. Plaintiff pushed Fraley back and they
both fell to the ground. Plaintiff was on top of Fraley and
Fraley struck him in the face. Plaintiff and Fraley stood up,
Fraley called for backup, then Fraley tackled Plaintiff to
the ground and handcuffed him. Plaintiff was fully restrained
on the ground. Defendant Martino saw Plaintiff kick another
officer in the shins, and then Martino kicked Plaintiff in
the back.

Plaintiff
was arrested for aggravated assault on a police officer and
was indicted by the Pima County Grand Jury. Plaintiff filed a
motion to dismiss based on his unlawful detention, and Judge
Eikleberry ruled that Plaintiff's detention was unlawful
and unsupported by probable cause. Defendants contend that
Judge Eikleberry's ruling addressed reasonable suspicion,
not probable cause. The Pima County Attorney's Office
subsequently dismissed the charges against Plaintiff.

III.
Standard of Review

Pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court may grant a motion to
dismiss when the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

A
complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of
the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, ” a
“short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief, ” and “a
demand for the relief sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). While
Rule 8 does not demand factual allegations, “it demands
more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Id.

To
survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a pleading
must allege facts sufficient “to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A claim must
be plausible, allowing the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the conduct
alleged. Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. “The
plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement, ' but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
“Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely
consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short
of the line between possibility and plausibility of
entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The
Court must view the complaint in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party, with every doubt resolved on his behalf,
and with that party&#39;s allegations taken as true. See
Abramson v. Brownstein, 897 F.2d 389, 391 (9th Cir.
1990). Generally, the court only considers the face of the
complaint when deciding a motion under ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.